3015 réponses à ce sujet

[Costin_Razvan]

ArawnNox wrote...

You guys do seem to forget that many so called "reformist" roman rulers had to kill and plot and slander their way to the top. They had to kill dissidents and assassinate their rivals.

I hope you realize the vast majority of rulers in history did the exact same thing right?

[ArawnNox]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

ArawnNox wrote...

You guys do seem to forget that many so called "reformist" roman rulers had to kill and plot and slander their way to the top. They had to kill dissidents and assassinate their rivals.

I hope you realize the vast majority of rulers in history did the exact same thing right?

Yes. I happen to be a fan of history, but I fail to see what point you're making.

[Costin_Razvan]

Yes. I happen to be a fan of history, but I fail to see what point you're making.

The point is that a leader is not a Tyrant for doing that.

[ArawnNox]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Yes. I happen to be a fan of history, but I fail to see what point you're making.

The point is that a leader is not a Tyrant for doing that.

Ooooh, I get it, its semantics. Tyrant = oppressive totalitantian rulership, right?
Regardless, just because it was common place doesn't make it morally right, which is what I think Sarah is getting at.

[Sarah1281]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

You don't need to insult me just because you disagree.

Actually I do like to mention to ignorant people that they are ignorant of the matter. Ignoring examples set by over 2.400 years of history is a huge example of this.

As I repeat myself, take a look at Augustus and you will see a great deal of Bhelen in him ( and that's just off the top of my head ).

You keep telling me to look at him. What about him do you feel is so relevant and why can't you just spell it out? You freely admit that many leaders in history had to kill their way to the top. Chances are, once they reach the top they have to be on the lookout for others who want to do the same thing and take them out first.

I'm not decrying Bhelen as some uniquely evil person or even calling him evil. How does saying something that your later posts seem to agree with - that Bhelen is a leader who has had to have had people killed in the past and will likely need to do so in the future - make me completely ignorant of history? 

[Giggles_Manically]

Bhelen is a tyrant... from a certain point of view that is.



People from a modern democratic worldview think he is, while people from a thousand years would not.



Likewise Casteless, Merchants, Surface Dwarves, and moderate nobles think of him as the greatest king ever. While tradition bound folks would hate him for getting rid of the traditions they think hold dwarven society toghther, while Bhelen would think they hold it back.

From different POVs Bhelen looks very different.



While yes I think he is going to do harsh things, Orzamar needs to move forward and take a role in the outside world, its isolation will only lead to problems and will do more harm than good.

As Bhelen himself put it "Now it the time for ACTION, not cultured debate"



While this is blunt, sometimes you need to kick someone in the ass very hard to get them moving, not just ask them politely.

[Costin_Razvan]

Ooooh, I get it, its semantics. Tyrant = oppressive totalitantian rulership, right?.

Exactly that, yes.

Regardless, just because it was common place doesn't make it morally right, which is what I think Sarah is getting at.

Let's be honest for a second here. If anyone can claim that even a decent leader ( let's not even go with the Good ones ) follow the right moral path then they are either idiots/ignorants/ lying.

[Sarah1281]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Yes. I happen to be a fan of history, but I fail to see what point you're making.

The point is that a leader is not a Tyrant for doing that.

Tyrant is just a label. One that is, in fact, referred to in the game. The epilogue slides say that people couldn't decide if he was a tyrant or just a visionary trying to bring Orzammar into the modern age. Tyrant has a lot of negative connotations so obviously those who aren't fans of Bhelen's would bring it up in-universe.

Here are three definitions of tyrant:

1. An absolute ruler who governs without restrictions.
2. A ruler who exercises power in a harsh, cruel manner.
3. An oppressive, harsh, arbitrary person.

As Bhelen dissolves the Assembly and rules alone, there don't actually appear to be any checks on him save the odd assassination attempt that might convince him not to try something. He fits the first definition perfectly regardless of how well he does or if the second definition fits.

[Eudaemonium]

Okay, am I missing something here, because I don't really get this dicussion. Sarah is saying that Bhelen will likely kill (or more precisely have killed/assassinated, etc) a number of people during his reign, and Costin is saying that a great many rulers throughout history have done the same thing for similar reasons (consolidation of political power, disruption of potential revolts, to name just two). I fail to see exactly where the disagreement is.

Whether you consider Bhelen a Tyrant surely depends on which strata of Orzammar society one happens to be on. If he benefits you (for example, if you're casteless by giving you rights and the right to bear arms), you're likely to see him as an enlightened visionary; conversely, if he removes your house from political power (for example, by abolishing the assembly), you're likely to see him as a Tyrant. Tyrant/Visionary doesn't have much to do with who he does/doesn't kill and seems, in game, to have more to do with individual dwarves' perspectives regarding his political reforms.

[Sarah1281]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Regardless, just because it was common place doesn't make it morally right, which is what I think Sarah is getting at.

Let's be honest for a second here. If anyone can claim that even a decent leader ( let's not even go with the Good ones ) follow the right moral path then they are either idiots/ignorants/ lying.

Is that where your 'OMG, you know nothing about history!' stance is coming from? I never said rulers were supposed to be moral or that other rulers were. This all started when I expressed surprise that the Dace brothers clearly cared so much for each other despite being Orzammar nobility and from House Dace (which I don't like), someone said maybe this was supposed to show that not every single dwarf who happens to be noble had Bhelen's views on family and given that the Dace brothers are said to only be distantly related to the main Dace family that adds realism to their disconnect for the higher-ups lack of familial loyalty. None of that has anything to do with whether real historical leaders were good, honorable men nor is it calling Bhelen a monster for acting more like them.

[Costin_Razvan]

Because he dissolves the Assembly it means he governs without restrictions? That's quite a stretch there.

As Knight pointed out, it's only a temporary thing but that does not mean he is in a position where he can pull that off for his entire reign ( game slides or not ). The restrictions upon his governing is that he still has to rely on his allies, if he removes the Assembly for far too long he will lose many of them in time, and that's not something he can afford to do.

Restrictions as you asked for em.

  None of that has anything to do with whether real historical leaders were good, honorable men nor is it calling Bhelen a monster for acting more like them.  

Actually since you did quote Raonar who made Bhelen a Tyrant, it has quite a lot to do with it.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 11 août 2010 - 12:18 .

[ArawnNox]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Ooooh, I get it, its semantics. Tyrant = oppressive totalitantian rulership, right?.

Exactly that, yes.

Regardless, just because it was common place doesn't make it morally right, which is what I think Sarah is getting at.

Let's be honest for a second here. If anyone can claim that even a decent leader ( let's not even go with the Good ones ) follow the right moral path then they are either idiots/ignorants/ lying.

I'm not talking about what it takes to be a leader, though. I'm talking about morality. It's not the same thing. You have to be able to make those tough calls as a leader. Those calls that will cost the lives of the people you rule/command/etc.
That's kind of the point of the Orzammar story, in my opinion. Harrowmont is the upright and honest man... and he's a terrible king. While Bhelen is underhanded and harsh, but he is a much better king for the dwarven people. In my opinion.

[Costin_Razvan]

Morality has no place in politics in my opinion. Arawn

[Sarah1281]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Because he dissolves the Assembly it means he governs without restrictions? That's quite a stretch there.

As Knight pointed out, it's only a temporary thing but that does not mean he is in a position where he can pull that off for his entire reign ( game slides or not ). The restrictions upon his governing is that he still has to rely on his allies, if he removes the Assembly for far too long he will lose many of them in time, and that's not something he can afford to do.

Restrictions as you asked for em.

  None of that has anything to do with whether real historical leaders were good, honorable men nor is it calling Bhelen a monster for acting more like them.  

Actually since you did quote Raonar who made Bhelen a Tyrant, it has quite a lot to do with it.

If you're looking at 'ruling without restrictions' to literally mean that the leader can do whatever the **** he wants to and not worry about the consequences then no one is a tyrant because they do have to stop before they provoke the entire rest of the country rising up and removing them from power or everyone else with any semblance of power all turning against them.

Bhelen having the ability to dissolve the Assembly and us not knowing how long this lasts for or what he does while it's dissolved to ensure that they're not a threat when they come back makes it difficult to judge just what kind of restrictions and if they're 'real' restrictions he has.

Edit: So because I quoted someone that means I'm automatically agreeing with everything they think or every fanfic choice they make? 

Modifié par Sarah1281, 11 août 2010 - 12:23 .

[Costin_Razvan]

If you're looking at 'ruling without restrictions' to literally mean that the leader can do whatever the **** he wants to and not worry about the consequences then no one is a tyrant because they do have to stop before they provoke the entire rest of the country rising up and removing them from power or everyone else with any semblance of power all turning against them.

What I was trying to say is that Bhelen does not hold absolute power in Orzammar ( as say how other leaders did ) and thus is not in a position to rule without any restriction. He relies upon the nobles for support...but if even he oversteps his bounds by one 1 cm he will lose them as allies and be overthrown, and that is restriction to his power.

 So because I quoted someone that means I'm automatically agreeing with everything they think or every fanfic choice they make?  

You quoted the idea that Bhelen is a Tyrant, an idea which you agree on.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 11 août 2010 - 12:32 .

[ArawnNox]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Morality has no place in politics in my opinion. Arawn

Still not my point.

[Sarah1281]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

If you're looking at 'ruling without restrictions' to literally mean that the leader can do whatever the **** he wants to and not worry about the consequences then no one is a tyrant because they do have to stop before they provoke the entire rest of the country rising up and removing them from power or everyone else with any semblance of power all turning against them.

What I was trying to say is that Bhelen does not hold absolute power in Orzammar ( as say how other leaders did ) and thus is not in a position to rule without any restriction. He relies upon the nobles for support...but if even he oversteps his bounds by one 1 cm he will lose them as allies and be overthrown, and that is restriction to his power.

 So because I quoted someone that means I'm automatically agreeing with everything they think or every fanfic choice they make?  

You quoted the idea that Bhelen is a Tyrant, an idea which you agree on.

Is there a precedent for an unpopular King being overthrown? All I heard in the game was that their heirs won't be accepted.

And what I agreed with is that he is called a tyrant in the game. Granted, just his enemies do this but if his enemies take power after him then history might very well remember Bhelen as a cruel tyrant.

[Costin_Razvan]

Is there a precedent for an unpopular King being overthrown? All I heard in the game was that their heirs won't be accepted.

If a King losses all his political allies, then yes I think he would be overthrown quite very easily.

And what I agreed with is that he is called a tyrant in the game. Granted, just his enemies do this but if his enemies take power after him then history might very well remember Bhelen as a cruel tyrant.

Fair enough. I will drop the matter, but Bhelen is no Tyrant just because a few people say he is.

[saruman85]

Sarah1281 wrote...
Is there a precedent for an unpopular King being overthrown? All I heard in the game was that their heirs won't be accepted.

Queen Getha was deposed after she sent the entire Legion of Steel after Caridin and they didn't come back. According to the wiki, anyhow.

Still, that was a desperate time of war, and Getha didn't seem to be as bent on self-preservation as Bhelen, so it doesn't mean the same thing would happen to him after he sent the Assembly packing.

[KnightofPhoenix]

People need to know what Tyrant really means. Tyrant, literally, means usurper, as in someone who took power via un-traditional, un-consitutional means, generally involving violence and whose rule is marked by disrespect of previously established laws.

On one hand, Bhelen, if king, became so by the will of a Paragon, aka the ultimate authority for the dwarves. So his rise to power is not unconstitutional. On the other, him disolving the assembly, defying the will of a paragon at the assembly, attacking the paragon Branka without second thought and reforming the caste system can be interpretted as un-constitutional acts.

So like Giggles said, it depends on perspective. If we are using the accurate definition of "tyrant".

However, if by "tyrant" one solely means oppression, then here I would have to stand with Costin. No regime in ancient history doesn't apply pressure to one class / group, it's axiomatic (debatable if it's the case for modern democracies, but we don't have many historical examples to establish a clear conclusion ). Bhelen is clearly putting pressure to many noble and warrior houses, so from their perspective, he can be seen as oppressive. But for the majority of the dwarves, Bhelen is not an oppressor, he is in fact the contrary. He is liberating them from the oppression of tradition (the most dangerous form of oppression imo). So, if by tyrant we mean oppression of the majority of the people, then Bhelen does not qualify as one. His policies are rather that of an "enlightened despot".

As a political science student, the way I would objectively describe Bhelen's rule is: a progressive / reformist / modernist authoritarian.

If by tyrant, we mean a ruler who goes against the established laws / norms, then yea sure Bhelen would be a tyrant, a good one as the laws established were idiotic. I don't mind calling Bhelen a tyrant if that's what people mean by it. Indeed, most visionaries would be qualified as tyrants if that's the case. But the word "tyrant" took on a negative meaning as of course the people who liked the previous laws, need to insult the ones who change it. So in that case, I think we can safely say that someone's tyrant is another man's reformer.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 11 août 2010 - 11:11 .

[Liliandra Nadiar]

Bhalen pulls Orzamarr into the future of Fereldan/Theadas, weather it wants to go or not. By that standard, he's possibly the best thing for the 'nation', but he does so by stepping on a lot of toes/sensibilities.

[Costin_Razvan]

Regarding the Golems of Amgarrak....bull**** DLC in my opinion. Not even worth posting the pics I took.



I wanted to make an LP for it...but that idea went out the windows when I learned I was working for House and only House Dace...part of me screamed at the idea of not going back to Orzammar and telling Bhelen there was another way of making Golems...



And of course in the end you don't find another way to make Golems, but you destroy everything..

[Loerwyn]

Thanks for the spoilers, Costin. Not that I'm going to buy it, of course.

[soignee]

WHAT YOU WORK FOR HOUSE DACE? WHAT.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Costin_Razvan wrote...
And of course in the end you don't find another way to make Golems, but you destroy everything..

So we don't have a choice in the matter?
That's just wonderful.

Not buying it then. My canon pc is the kind of person that doesn't like to destroy potentially valuable ressources.